Apple wants a say in the DOJ’s antitrust case against Google.
The company is asking to officially join the DOJ’s search antitrust case against Google, arguing that the government’s proposed remedy, which was introduced in November, would unfairly harm Apple’s business and cost the company billions. In a legal filing today with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Apple asked that the case be paused or fast-tracked for appeal. The company says that unless it’s recognized as a full participant, it won’t be able to review evidence, question witnesses, or really defend itself before the trial begins on April 21, 2025.
Apple made the request after last week, when a lower court denied its attempt to fully join the case. Instead, that court said that it could only it participate as an outside observer. This means Apple can submit legal arguments but can’t actively take part in the trial (taking away the ability to present, question witnesses, etc.).
At the center of Apple’s appeal is the DOJ’s proposed remedy, which would ban Apple from receiving payments from Google for search distribution for the next ten (!) years. Apple argues this goes well-beyond the original focus of the case, which was about Google’s exclusive agreements, and pressures them to build their own search engine, a move they never planned to make. Tim Cook’s company also says Google can’t defend Apple’s interests, as the proposed remedy ultimately benefits Google by letting it avoid payments to Apple while still dominating search.
Why This Matters:
This case alone is a big deal, obviously, as it may reshape the search landscape. But the implications tentacle out beyond Apple and Google. If the DOJ’s remedy is upheld, it could set a precedent for limiting revenue-sharing agreements between platform owners and search engines, reshaping the way companies structure default search agreements. Additionally, Apple’s “forced” involvement also raises concerns about how non-party companies can be dragged into antitrust cases, sparking debate over the DOJ’s scope and regulatory reach. (Or at least it should.)
Experts React:
Good thread here from Chamber of Progress’ Vidushi Dyall:
In its filing, Apple says that the DOJ’s proposal wrongly assumes Apple should build its own search engine—a demand that, in legal terms, is pretty crazy:
“Whereas Plaintiffs had previously focused exclusively on Google, their PFJ targeted Apple by name with a remedy designed to force Apple—a non-party that had not been accused of any wrongdoing—to develop a competing search engine.”
Apple also argues that the stakes of the case are pretty weighty, which is very true. They could fundamentally alter how people use search entirely, hence the need to get the decision right:
“The real public interest is in getting the remedy—which could impact consumers’ use of search engines for decades—right. If the remedies phase proceeds without Apple’s intervention and ability to participate as a party, it will harm not just Apple, but also Apple’s users and the American public.”
Our Take:
Shouldn’t Apple just buy Perplexity, just in case? (We joke, we joke.)
